HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6 - ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)Meeting Date: July 23, 2018
Item Number: 6
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of proposed deconstruction and reconstruction of a single-family dwelling
and detached garage on a Contributing List Historic Property.
ADDRESS: 859 Murray Street BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE #: ARCH-1422-2018 Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the draft resolution provided, recommending the Community
Development Director find the project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
SITE DATA
Applicant Ted Gill
Representative Louisa Smith
Complete Date 7/12/2018
General Plan Low Density Residential
Zoning Low Density Residential (R-1)
Site Area 7,750 square feet
Historic Status Contributing List Resource
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15301:
Existing Facilities)
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to deconstruct a single-family dwelling and detached garage, which are
sided in brick, retain the exterior materials, construct new building foundations and reconstruct the
structures using the original retained materials. The dwelling and garage will be situated in the
same general location on the property, although there will be minor modification of the “footprint”
of each building.
3.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to review the proposed work and provide a recommendation to the
Community Development Director on the consistency of the project with the City’s Historic
Packet Page 186
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 2
Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and with the Secretary of
Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Site and Setting
The site is a 7,750 square-foot residential
parcel on the south side of Murray Street,
between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets. It is
developed with a single-family dwelling, and
detached garage, both built in 1931.1
It is within the Mt. Pleasant Square/ Anholm
Neighborhood, an area developed in the early
20th Century, having a concentration of
architecturally important homes of various
styles popular at that time, including Mission
Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor
Revival, Craftsman, and California
Bungalow. More than half of the properties on the 800 block of Murray are included in the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources (15 Contributing List Resources).
The dwelling is described as “Spanish Colonial Revival” in style, popular through the late 1930s,
having emerged from an effort by architects to emulate older Spanish architectural traditions, and
at its peak incorporating features of other Mediterranean regions (see Attachment 6). The
building exhibits several of the character-defining features of the style, including:2
▪ Asymmetrical facade
▪ Red clay tile gable roof (dwelling); flat roof with a tile-clad parapet (garage)
▪ Wood-frame casement or double-hung windows, typically with divided lights
The property was included, as part of a group of 28 properties in the Mt. Pleasant Square/
Anholm Neighborhood, as a Contributing List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources in September 1999 (Resolution 8963).
4.2 Project Description
The proposed project involves several elements:3
▪ Deconstruction of both buildings, and storage of the original materials for re-use
▪ Construction of new building foundations and framing
▪ Construction of a stem wall to raise the floor level above flood elevation
▪ Reconstruction of both buildings using salvageable original materials
1 For details of property background, see Applicant Letters and Background Research (Attachment 3)
2 Character-defining features of the buildings are discussed in greater detail in the Evaluation section of this report.
3 See Sheets A1-1 and A1-2 of Project Plans (Attachment 5)
Figure 1: 859 Murray
Packet Page 187
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 3
Both the dwelling and the garage will be reconstructed in the same general location on the site and
in the same general form, though each structure will be shifted a couple of feet away from the
interior side property lines to comply with current yard depth (setback) standards. A small amount
of additional useable floor area will also be added to the rear of each structure (175 sq. ft. to the
dwelling, 55 sq. ft. to the garage).
4.3 Supporting Documentation
Two supporting documents submitted with this application describe the proposed work in further
detail: an evaluation of the condition of the buildings by Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc.
(Attachment 3); and an Historic Resource and Rehabilitation Plans Evaluation prepared by Louisa
Anne Smith and Charles Crotser, Architects (Attachment 4) describing the property, the work to
be carried out, and the consistency of the proposed work with applicable historical preservation
standards and guidelines.
Existing Building Evaluations (Ashley & Vance). The Ashley & Vance evaluation describes
significant cracking observed throughout the structure of the main dwelling, and high clay soils,
lack of roof gutters, and landscaped areas immediately adjacent to the building are identified as
factors contributing to the damage. A recommendation is made that the existing unreinforced
stacked brick foundation be replaced by a reinforced concrete foundation to ensure the survival
of the structure and the safety of its occupants. It is further noted that salvaging the existing
structure is not feasible, and removal of the floor of the building and the entire building façade
will be necessary in order to replace the foundation.
Historical Resource and Rehabilitation Plans Evaluation (Smith & Crotser). The Historical
Resource and Rehabilitation Plans Evaluation (Historic Evaluation, Attachment 4) describes the
project as follows:
The stated intent for this project, due to its severe deterioration, is to deconstruct
the structure, carefully remove original materials (clay tile roof, wood windows,
veneer brick and foundation brick) and reconstruct the residence in essentially
the identical configuration that we see today. The reconstruction and
Figure 2: Existing building condition, showing cracking along wall surfaces
Packet Page 188
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 4
rehabilitation would insure that the structure is structurally sound, meets current
code and other functional requirements and remains a “contributing element” of
this neighborhood. (§ 3.2 – Methodology)
The report evaluates the consistency of the proposed work with historic preservation standards and
guidelines, and provides recommendations for ensuring the work is carried out in a manner
consistent with those standards and guidelines, including recommendations addressing the
removal, storage, and reuse of building components including the brick veneer, clay tile roofing
material, and windows. Exhibit C of the report provides photographs of the damage to the building
described in the Ashley & Vance evaluation (also see Figure 2).
5.0 EVALUATION
Evaluation of this project is focused on determining whether the project is consistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and whether the proposed work will be carried out
consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for changes to historic
resources (§ 3.4, see Attachment 8) and with the standards and guidelines for rehabilitating historic
buildings provided in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (SOI Standards). The work to be carried out has been described in the Historic
Evaluation submitted with this application, and is consistent with applicable standards and
guidelines as further discussed in this section.
5.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance and supporting guidelines
Given the unusual scope of the project, wherein disassembly and reconstruction of entire structures
is necessitated by the need to completely replace building foundations, the work involves elements
of preservation, demolition, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.
Guidelines for alterations. If, as provided in § 14.01.100 (A) of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance (HPO, see Attachment 7), the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) determines the work
to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (SOI Standards) and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, demolition
thresholds established in the HPO will not apply to the project. Under those conditions, the project
Figure 3: Rendering of dwelling, after proposed reconstruction
Packet Page 189
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 5
will be considered as “rehabilitation” as defined in the HPO (§ 14.01.020).4 As such, guidelines
provided in § 3.4 (Changes to Historic Resources) of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(HPPG) are applicable to the proposed work:
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain at least 75% of the original
building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and
reuse original materials as feasible. […] Alterations do not include ordinary
repair or maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources
(§ 3.4.2)
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain character defining features.
[…] (§ 3.4.3)
Guidelines for reconstruction. The structures currently exist in their original form and location,
but will be disassembled, then reconstructed after new building foundations are installed.
Guidance is provided in HPPG § 3.5 for the reconstruction of historic resources:
Reconstruction shall follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and shall be
based on conclusive evidence such as architectural plans, photos, as-built
drawings and other reliable and accurate information (§ 3.5.2)
The Director or the ARC, on recommendation by the CHC, may approve minor
variations from the original design to meet code requirements; provided the
overall architectural character is maintained and character defining features are
accurately recreated. (§ 3.5.3)
Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with the above guidelines for alterations and for
reconstruction, with incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval in the draft
resolution. Both the dwelling and the garage will be reconstructed in essentially the same location
on the site and in the same form. The appearance of the reconstructed dwelling will be substantially
the same, with almost all of the original roof, walls, and cladding proposed to be retained.
Character-defining features have been identified in the Historic Evaluation, and the evaluation
describes the retention of these features in the reconstructed buildings.
As described in § 4.1.6 (Structural System) of the Historic Evaluation, the foundation and wood
frame structure of the dwelling require repair to achieve compliance with current building codes.
If carried out consistent with SOI Standards, such repair would not be considered as alterations
and would not be subject to the retention thresholds established in HPPG § 3.4.2. Excluding the
portions of the structural system that must be repaired, plans and supporting documentation
demonstrate that the majority of the original building’s roofing materials and cladding are retained
on reconstruction, along with its character defining features.
4 The Historic Preservation Ordinance uses the definition of “Rehabilitation” provided by the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards: “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its architectural, cultural, or
historic values.”
Packet Page 190
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 6
Because the structures currently exist in their original form and location, accurate information is
available to serve as a basis for the reconstruction of the structures. The small addition to the rear
of the dwelling is minor and will not affect the overall architectural character. A condition of
approval (# 3) requires that the applicant prepare building elevation and detail drawings depicting
the existing appearance of the structures, supplemented by photo -documentation, to serve as
reliable evidence for accurate reconstruction of the buildings, consistent with HPPG § 3.5.2.
Garage reconstruction: Plans for the detached garage, however, depict a new roof form, siding
materials, and doors, discarding the character-defining flat roof and tile-covered roof parapet, the
brick siding, and sliding doors. It does not appear that enough of the original garage building is
retained to achieve consistency with the general 75% retention threshold of HPPG § 3.4.3. Staff
therefore recommends a condition of approval (# 4) directing that the garage be reconstructed in a
manner that preserves its architectural and historic character, retaining its character-defining
features.
5.2 Secretary of Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards)5
are used to provide guidance for rehabilitation of historic buildings. Rehabilitation is a treatment
defined in the SOI Standards as: “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a
property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features
which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values” (SOI Standards, pg. 75). Standards
for Rehabilitation are provided as Attachment 9 to this report. Of particular relevance to this
project are the following Standards for Rehabilitation:
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships
that characterize a property will be avoided. (Standard 2)
Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. (Standard 5)
Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and
physical evidence. (Standard 6)
Staff Analysis. As stated in the Historic Evaluation submitted with this application: “the
rehabilitation of this building will retain all of the building’s character-defining features”6 which
5 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings .
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation Services, 2017 .
6 Louisa Anne Smith and Charles Crotser, Historic Resource and Rehabilitation Plans Evaluation for the Gill
Residence (June 2018), § 2.6.1.
Packet Page 191
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 7
are identified in the Evaluation. Consistency of the proposed work with particular standards is
more specifically discussed in § 3.3 of the Evaluation:
Consistency with Standard 2: The rehabilitated structure shall retain and
preserve all of its relevant character defining elements. The distinctive materials,
specifically the clay tile roofing, the original brick veneer siding and wood
windows, shall be carefully removed, stored and reinstalled so as to retain the
original form, character and materiality of the residence. (pg. 10)
Consistency with Standard 5: […] Those distinctive features and character
defining elements as described in this report shall be preserved in the
rehabilitation. (pg. 10)
Consistency with Standard 6: The primary materials (roofing and brick veneer)
shall be carefully removed and reinstalled during the rehabilitation. The primary
structural elements (wood frame and unreinforced brick foundation) must be
replaced because of extreme deterioration and lack of structural adequacy […].
The only other features of importance are the wood windows. These items shall be
carefully removed and restored. If it is discovered that any of the windows are
beyond repair, new windows will be constructed or replaced with an appropriate
product to match the existing windows in character. (pg. 11)
Recommendations provided in § 4.1 of the Evaluation address consistency with specific guidance
provided in SOI Standards for several elements of the work:
▪ retention and storage of original materials
▪ discussion of the methods of cleaning the brick veneer and clay tile roofing
▪ repair and re-use of windows, and limits on window replacement
▪ repair of the structural system (framing, load-bearing structure)
Condition of approval #1 reiterates that the project design and final construction plans must be in
substantial compliance with approved plans and with supporting documentation, including the
recommendations provided in the Historic Evaluation.
Furthermore, more specific guidance is found in the SOI Standards, both for Rehabilitation and
for Reconstruction of historic buildings These guidelines provide recommendations for the
application of the Standards to specific elements of historic buildings, such as masonry and wood
features, roofs, windows, porches and entrances, and so on. As described below, several conditions
of approval have been incorporated into the draft resolution to help guide the proposed work so
that it can be carried out in a manner consistent with SOI Standards.
Masonry and roof features: The overall condition of the masonry features (bricks) and roof
material (tiles) must be evaluated in order to determine the extent and method of treatment (such
as cleaning), repair, or replacement of these elements that will be necessary, before work is
initiated. Justification should be provided for any new or replacement features used where original
Packet Page 192
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 8
materials cannot be salvaged or repaired for re-use, and new or replacement features should be
located on secondary elevations and less-visible locations on the building. Conditions 8 and 9
address the evaluation of masonry and roof features and documentation of treatment, repair, and
replacement; and condition 11 addresses the justification of new and replacement materials used,
and their placement on the building.
Windows: Similar to guidance for masonry and roof features, existing windows need to be
identified and evaluated, to determine which can be reused, which require repair, and which are
too deteriorated and must be replaced. Condition 10 provides for a complete inventory of existing
windows, including a description of whether each window can be reused, needs repair, or needs
replacement. Condition 12 further address the location and appropriateness of any new or
replacement windows used, and requires justification for new and replacement windows in place
of existing windows.
Structural systems: As described in the Supporting Documentation section above, and consistent
with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, the structural system of the dwelling has
been evaluated by a professional structural engineer, who concluded that replacement of the
existing brick foundation with a reinforced concrete foundation is necessary, and that salvaging
the existing structure is not feasible, given the extent of existing damage to the structure. Plans and
the Historic Evaluation prepared for this project show that replacement of the structural system is
limited to the foundation, floor, and wall framing, which are not visible from the building exterior,
and limited in-kind replacement of masonry material that cannot be salvaged, which will be placed
in less-visible locations on the building.
Stem wall: Because the property is located within a flood hazard zone, the dwelling is proposed to
be raised from its current elevation to a level above the flood elevation. To accomplish this, a stem
wall is proposed along the perimeter of the building, resulting in a change of materials from the
concrete of the stem wall to the reconstructed brick façade (see Figure 4). Guidelines for
Rehabilitation provide the following guidance for Resilience to Natural Hazards:
Recommended: Implementing local and regional traditions (such as elevating
residential buildings at risk of flooding […]) for adapting buildings and sites in
response to specific natural hazards, when appropriate. Such traditional methods
Figure 4: East elevation (reconstructed dwelling), showing stem wall
Packet Page 193
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 9
may be appropriate if they are compatible with the historic character of the
building, its site, and setting.
A masonry base does not, in and of itself, conflict with the Spanish Colonial style of the dwelling.
The stem wall will raise the front of the building a modest amount, about 2 ½ feet from its current
elevation, and most of the wall will be obscured by the front fence and gate. At the rear of the
building, however, this stem wall will reach 4 to 5 feet in height which, if not sensitively handled,
could result in an awkward appearance.
A wood deck is proposed at the rear of the residence, which can be designed to mitigate the
appearance of the taller portion of stem wall on this side of the building. The rear -most portions
of the stem wall that are exposed along the east elevation could be mitigated with features such as
landscape planters accommodating shrubbery of a sufficient height and depth to partially mask the
stem wall, to reduce its perceived height. A condition of approval (# 6) is proposed to address the
apparent height of portions of the stem wall. Furthermore, condition of approval #5 discourages
continuation of brick veneer over the stem wall, in order to differentiate it from the reconstructed
original brick surface, and to preserve the proportions between window openings and the extent of
brick siding.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It consists of the repair of an existing structure, with negligible expansion of the existing residential
floor area, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities). The project will not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource since character
defining features are retained and the project is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and
the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent
issues.
2. Recommend that the Community Development Director deny the application, pursuant to
findings of inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Existing Building Evaluations (Ashley & Vance)
4. Historic Resource and Rehabilitation Plan Evaluation (June 2018)
5. Project Plans
6. Spanish Colonial Revival Style (excerpt from Historic Context Statement)
7. Historical Preservation Ordinance (Excerpt)
8. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Excerpt)
9. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings
(Excerpt)
Packet Page 194
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2018
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FINDTHE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 859
MURRAY STREET AND DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING LIST HISTORIC
RESOURCE, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE (ARCH-1236-2018)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ted Gill, filed an application on February 15, 2018, for review
of the deconstruction and reconstruction of a single-family dwelling and detached garage at
859 Murray Street; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on July 23, 2018, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee makes
the following findings:
1. General Plan (COSE) consistency. The project is consistent with goals and policies
for Cultural Heritage set out in § 3.1 of the General Plan’s Conservation and Open
Space. The structures on the property are being preserved and rehabilitated,
including the character-defining features that have been identified (§ § 3.3.1
& 3.3.2) in a historic preservation report prepared for this project by the applicant.
Consistent with § 3.3.4, proposed changes to the structures are minor in nature,
consistent with the structures’ original forms, limited to secondary elevations to
maintain their “street appearance,” and, as further detailed in subsequent findings,
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Buildings (SOI Standards).
2. Historic preservation report. Consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines (HPPG), a historic preservation report, identifying character-
defining features of the structures on the subject property, including brick siding,
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 195
Resolution No. ____-2018
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 2
clay roof tiles, and windows, and describing the work to be carried out, has been
prepared for the project (HPPG § 3.4.1 (e)).
3. Extent of alteration. Consistent with the City’s preservation guidelines, more than
75% of the original building form, including the roof and walls are retained, to be
reconstructed under the proposed work (HPPG § 3.4.2). Building framework that
will be repaired in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) is not considered to be
alteration that is subject to this threshold. Character-defining features have been
identified in a historic preservation report and plans depict retention of these
features upon reconstruction of the building (HPPG § 3.4.3). A small addition at
the rear of the building follows the building’s rectangular form and uses the same
exterior materials, roof form, and window pattern, to achieve architectural
compatibility (HPPG § 3.4.4).
4. Evidence for reconstruction. Consistent with the City’s preservation guidelines,
reconstruction work will be carried out in a manner consistent with the SOI
Standards for Reconstruction of Historic Buildings, and will be based on conclusive
evidence and reliable, and accurate information (HPPG § 3.5.2). Preservation and
retention of character-defining materials and features is described in the applicant’s
historic preservation report and depicted in project plans. A condition of approval
(# 3) requires that final plans include building elevation and detail drawings of the
existing structures and an inventory of existing windows, supplemented with
photographic documentation, to serve as a reliable basis for reconstruction.
5. Consistency with City Ordinance and guidelines. As conditioned, and as more fully
described in Findings 1-3, the project is consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) and with the supporting Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines for changes to historic resources (HPPG § 3.4)
and reconstruction of historic resources (HPPG § 3.5). (HPPG § 3.4.2). As further
described in subsequent findings, the proposed work is also consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
(HPPG 3.4.1 (f)).
6. Elevation for flood protection. The proposed stem wall raising the dwelling above
flood elevation is for the purpose of adapting the building to the flood hazard
present at this location, consistent with supporting guidelines for SOI Standards,
related to resilience to natural hazards. A condition of approval (# 5) requires the
stem wall to be treated in a manner that differentiates it from the original extent of
the brick wall surface, to preserve the proportionality between windows and the
brick wall, and to avoid suggesting that the stem wall is original construction.
Condition # 6 calls for incorporation of features that will mitigate the apparent
height of taller portions of the wall, such as planters that will accommodate
screening shrubbery, and the proposed wood deck at the rear of the building.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 196
Resolution No. ____-2018
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 3
7. Materials storage. As conditioned, the retention, storage, and reuse of masonry
elements, roof materials, and windows is consistent with guidelines for SOI
Standards, related to the protection of masonry features, roof materials, and
windows; in particular, the bricks, roof tiles, and windows to be stored and re-used.
A condition of approval (# 7) requires that the location of materials storage and
method of securing the materials be identified on final plans.
8. Evaluation and treatment of masonry and roof elements. As conditioned, the
proposed work can be carried out in a manner consistent with supporting guidelines
for SOI Standards, related to the evaluation of the condition of masonry features
and roof materials, and to their cleaning, repair, and, where deteriorated beyond
repair, their replacement. A condition of approval (# 9) requires that final plans be
supplemented with documentation of the cleaning methods and products to be used
for masonry elements and roof tiles, prior to commencement of cleaning work.
Condition # 11 requires that the applicant, on evaluating the condition of the
masonry elements (bricks) and roof material (tiles), document and justify the
amount of replacement brick and roof tile necessary, providing the reasons for any
necessary replacement, and that plans depict the locations on the building at which
new and replacement brick and roof tile will be installed, to verify that they are
placed in less-visible locations where possible.
9. Evaluation and treatment of windows. As conditioned, the proposed work will be
carried out consistent with supporting guidelines for SOI Standards related to the
evaluation of the condition of the windows, and to their repair, or, where
deteriorated beyond repair, their replacement. A condition of approval (# 12)
requires that final plans include an inventory (window schedule) detailing all
existing windows, including their disposition (to be preserved, repaired, or
replaced), and any replacement windows, along with description and depiction of
the extent, reason, and location of any necessary window replacement, to verify
that replacement windows are justified and that they are placed in less-visible
location where possible.
10. SOI Guidelines for masonry features. As conditioned, the project is consistent with
supporting guidelines for SOI Standards, related to masonry features. The brick
siding and detailing have been identified in the applicant’s historic preservation
report as character-defining features. The condition of masonry features of the
dwelling has been evaluated by a structural engineer, who has concluded that the
brick façade of the dwelling must be removed in order to repair the building’s
structural system (foundation and framing). As depicted in plans and described in
the applicant’s historic preservation report, the brick materials will be retained,
cleaned, and reconstructed under the proposed work, with replacement materials
limited to any deteriorated brick which cannot be salvaged or repaired. A condition
of approval (# 4) requires that the garage be reconstructed using the same brick
material or, where appropriate, suitable replacement brick.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 197
Resolution No. ____-2018
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 4
11. SOI Guidelines for roofs. As conditioned, the project is consistent with supporting
guidelines for SOI Standards, related to roofs. The existing roof form, clay tile
roofing material, and roof details have been identified in the applicant’s historic
preservation report as character-defining features. As depicted in plans and
described in the applicant’s historic preservation report, the existing roof form will
be recreated on reconstruction, and the clay tiles will be retained, cleaned, and re-
used under the proposed work, with replacement materials limited to any
deteriorated tiles which cannot be repaired. Condition of approval # 4 requires that
the tile-covered parapet roof form be retained on the detached garage building.
12. SOI Guidelines for windows. As conditioned, the project is consistent with
supporting guidelines for SOI Standards, related to windows. As depicted in plans
and described in the applicant’s historic preservation report, the existing window
pattern and detailing will be recreated on reconstruction (with limited change to the
pattern along the rear elevation), and the existing windows will be retained, repaired
where necessary, and re-used under the proposed work, with replacement windows
limited to any deteriorated windows which cannot be repaired.
13. SOI Guidelines for structural systems. The project is consistent with supporting
guidelines for SOI Standards, related to structural systems. The structural system
of the dwelling has been evaluated by a professional structural engineer, who
concluded that replacement of the existing brick foundation with a reinforced
concrete foundation is necessary, and that salvaging the existing structure is not
feasible, given the extent of existing damage to the structure. Replacement of the
structural system is limited to the foundation, floor, and wall framing, which are
not visible from the building exterior, and limited in-kind replacement of masonry
material that cannot be salvaged, which will be placed in less-visible locations on
the building.
14. SOI Guidelines for additions. As conditioned, the small addition proposed at the
rear of the existing dwelling is consistent with guidelines for SOI Standards, related
to new additions. As depicted in plans, the addition is an architecturally compatible
extension of the existing building form, located on a secondary elevation,
constructed of the same materials, and following the existing window pattern and
roof form.
Section 2. Environmental Review. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of the repair of a single-family
dwelling, requiring its deconstruction and reconstruction, and minor alterations to a detached
garage, both existing structures, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend the
Community Development Director find the project to be consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance, with incorporation of the following recommended conditions into project
approval:
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 198
Resolution No. ____-2018
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 5
1. Conformance to approved plans, supporting documentation, and conditions. Final
project design and construction drawings submitted for building permits shall be in
substantial compliance with the plans reviewed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee, with the recommendations contained in the Historical Resource and
Rehabilitation Plans Evaluation submitted with this application, and with the
conditions of approval herein. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in plans
submitted for permits, listing all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be
made in the margin of the listed conditions as to where in plans requirements are
addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other
conditions of approval must be reviewed and approved by the Cultural Heritage
Committee or Community Development Director, as deemed appropriate.
2. Colors and materials. Plan submitted for permits to complete this project shall
clearly depict and describe all materials and colors, including siding, roofing,
windows, and decorative trim, and the dimensions of windows, including window
frames and mullions, lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, trim, and other related
window features, shall be clearly indicated, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
3. Evidence for reconstruction. The applicant shall prepare building elevation and
detail drawings depicting the existing appearance of the structur es to be
deconstructed and reconstructed, to serve as documentary evidence sufficient to
permit accurate reconstruction of the buildings, consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction and Guidelines for Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. The drawings shall be supplemented by photo-documentation and by the
applicant’s historic preservation report. This evidence shall depict and describe all
character-defining features including, but not limited to, masonry features, roofs,
and windows, and shall accompany final plans submitted with applications for
construction permits to complete the project.
4. Reconstruction of garage. The detached garage shall be reconstructed in a manner
that preserves its architectural and historical character, including the retention of its
masonry siding, flat roof form, tile-covered parapet, and door type and operation.
Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall depict
a revised design for the garage that reflects this requirement.
5. Stem wall – differentiation. The extent and appearance, color, material, and texture
of the stem wall used to raise the dwelling above flood elevation shall be clearly
depicted and described in final plans submitted for construction permits to complete
this project. To avoid a conjectural appearance and to preserve the proportionality
between window placement and brick wall surface, the stem wall shall be
differentiated from the original brick wall surface and shall not be covered with
brick veneer.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 199
Resolution No. ____-2018
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 6
6. Stem wall – minimization of apparent height. Final plans for construction permits
to complete this project shall include and depict details of appropriate features that
will help to mask and reduce the apparent height of taller portions of the stem wall
used to raise the dwelling above flood elevation, particularly along the rear building
elevation and the rear portion of the east elevation. These features may, for
example, include deck features, such as the proposed rear wood deck, or landscape
planters that will accommodate plantings, such as shrubbery, of sufficient height
and bulk to mitigate the apparent height of these wall portions.
7. Materials storage. Final plans submitted with applications for construction permits
to complete this project shall identify the location at which retained materials (i.e.
brick, roof tiles, windows, other building elements) will be stored, and shall
describe the method of securing the stored materials, sufficient to prevent theft,
vandalism, or other damage, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards).
8. Evaluation of condition of masonry and roof elements. The applicant shall,
consistent with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings provided in SOI
Standards, evaluate the overall condition of the masonry features (bricks) and roof
material (tiles) to determine the extent of replacement of these elements that will
be necessary. Final plans for the project shall describe the extent of replacement (as
a percentage of the original amount of material).
9. Treatment of masonry and roof elements. Final plans submitted with applications
for construction permits to complete this project shall be supplemented by
documentation describing the cleaning methods and products to be used for
masonry elements and roof tiles, which shall be selected for consistency with
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings provided in SOI Standards, prior
to commencement of cleaning work.
10. Evaluation of windows. The applicant shall, consistent with Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings provided in SOI Standards, evaluate the overall
condition of windows to determine the extent of replacement of these elements that
will be necessary. Final plans for the project shall include an inventory, in the form
of a window schedule, describing all existing windows, including, but not limited
to, window type, operation, and dimensions, and describing the disposition of each
window (to be preserved, to be repaired and re-used, to be replaced).
11. New and replacement masonry and roof features. Final plans for construction
permits to complete this project shall clearly depict the locations on the building at
which new and replacement masonry features (i.e., new or replacement bricks) and
roof features (i.e., new or replacement roof tiles) will be installed. New or
replacement features shall be installed on secondary building elevations and in less-
visible locations, as practicable. Use of replacement features (i.e. brick, tile, etc.)
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 200
Resolution No. ____-2018
ARCH-1422-2018 (859 Murray)
Page 7
shall be justified by a description of the reasons why replacement is necessary, and
why original materials cannot be repaired and reused.
12. New and replacement windows. Final plans for construction permits to complete
this project shall clearly depict the locations on the building at which new and
replacement windows will be installed. New or replacement windows shall be
installed on secondary building elevations and in less-visible locations, as
practicable. Use of any replacement window shall be justified by a description of
the reasons why replacement is necessary, and why the original window cannot be
repaired and reused. The type, form, configuration, operation, material, and
dimension of all replacement windows shall be provided, including dimensions of
window elements (sashes, muntins and sills, mullions, etc.), sufficient to evaluate
their consistency with original windows and their appropriateness as replacements.
On motion by Committee Member __________, seconded by Committee Member _______,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of July 2018.
________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 201
O
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
CHORROMURRAY
WEST
VICINITY MAP ARCH-1422-2018859 Murray St ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 202
1413 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 545-0010
CI V IL •STR U C TU RA L
www.ashleyvance.com
February 8, 2018 May 9, 2018 UPDATE
Louisa Smith AIA
979 Osos St.
Suite A-2
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Existing Building Evaluations
859 Murry St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
AV #15973
Dear Lou:
At your request, I have evaluated the existing single family residence and garage located at the above-
referenced address.
Observations
The structure is an approximately 800 sq.ft. single-story building constructed in the early 20 th century.
The structure consists of conventional Type V wood roof & raised floor framing clad in red brick. The
framing is supported by stacked red brick foundations along the interior & exterior wall lines. The roofing
material is built up clay tile. The detached garage consisted of similar construction.
The foundations observed to be unreinforced stacked red brick along the exterior perimeter and interior
centerline. The unreinforced brick was integrally extended from the foundation to create the exterior
façade over wood framing. The wood floor & wall framing are supported directly on the unreinforced brick
foundations. (Ref 7) No anchorage was observed at the roof or floor diaphragms.
Starting at the front courtyard entry, several large diagonal cracks (occurring along the joint lines of the
brick façade) are immediately observed. The general direction of the cracks indicates they originate to
the interior of the wall line and propagate to the exterior wall line. The largest crack is approximately 1” in
width. (Ref 1)
Along the driveway and side yard elevations several smaller joint cracks are observed and typically
originate at an opening.
The rear elevation of the building exhibits the most significant cracking. The cracks are more horizontal
and show evidence of lateral movement. As evidenced by the various repair attempts, the cracks appear
to be different ages and also demonstrate continued movement. (Ref 2 & 3)
Significant cracking was noted throughout the structure. (Ref 4, 5 & 6). The cracking was diagonal which
is indicative lateral movement. Several cracks showed evidence of previous repair attempts which
indicates continued movement. Cracks also exhibited bulging (Ref 6).
Opinions
Based on visual observation, the soils supporting the structure appear to be have a high clay content.
This is noted by the desiccation cracks and the ball-like clumping. High clay soils are also known to exist
in the City and in area specifically.
Soils of this type are very reactive in the presence of water. When moist, the soil swells or expands;
when dry, the soil shrinks or contracts. This movement exerts forces on structures it supports. Over time,
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 203
Page 2 of 5
this continued movement can cause stresses in the structure. (In fact, stringent building requirements
exist in current codes to address these conditions. These requirements obviously predate the
construction of this building.)
As the stresses build, the stresses result in cracking in those buildings not specifically designed to resist
the forces. Due to the cyclical nature of the shrinking & swelling of the soils, once cracking develops it
tends to worsen over time.
The lack of roof gutters as well as maintained landscaping immediately adjacent to the building has
introduced & further directed water adjacent to the exterior foundation. This has further amplified the
issues over the years.
Inside the residence, the floor framing slopes with noticeable high points along the interior and low points
around the exterior perimeter. Substantial cracking of interior walls has occurred at the intersection with
the rear elevation.
Furthermore, the existing façade does not appear to be properly anchored or supported and will likely fall
in a significant seismic event. Brick ties and anchorage to the roof & floor are required in order to
maintain the integrity of the structure.
Summary
The unreinforced brick foundations & façade coupled with soils with a high clay content have caused
significant damage to the structure. Without significant work, this structure will continue to be ill-equipped
to resist the forces imparted upon the structure by the supporting soils. In fact, without such efforts, the
damage will continue.
Our office recommends a complete replacement of the existing brick foundation with a reinforced
concrete foundation designed to withstand the anticipated soil-related forces.
It should be noted that given the nature of the construction, a complete replacement of the foundation will
in all likelihood require the complete demolition of the building. As depicted in Ref 7, the exterior façade
is a continuation of the unreinforced foundation. In order to completely replace the foundation, it will be
necessary to remove the entire façade. Furthermore, to replace the interior foundation, the floor must be
removed. Once all these elements have been removed, there is little of the existing structure will remain.
In our professional opinion, salvaging the existing structure is not feasible given the extent of the damage
and the nature of the construction.
UPDATE: On a site visit on April 20, 2018 with City Staff, new substantial cracking was observed
in interior walls & ceilings throughout the structure. The cracks have grown substantially since
our previous visit and is evidence of the continued movement of the house. It is our opinion that
given the rate of damage which as occurred, the structure in its current condition is uninhabitable.
A new concrete foundation, designed to resist these movements, must be provided in order to
ensure the safety of the occupants as well as the survival of the structure.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have any further questions or need anything else.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Ashley Jr., SE 5258
Principal Engineer
ESSIONAL
ENGI
NEERFORPDERETSIGER
CUTR
S
U AR LT
CA L I F O RNIAFO
TATSE
S 5258CHARLESR.ASHLE
YJR.ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 204
Page 3 of 5
REFERENCED PHOTOS
Ref 1: Cracks at Front Entry Ref 2:Lateral Movement at Rear Elevation
Ref 3:Cracks at Rear Elevation
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 205
Page 4 of 5
Ref 4: Interior Cracking at Side Door
Ref 5: Interior Cracking at Rear Elevation
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 206
Page 5 of 5
(E) Wall Framing
(E) Floor Framing
(E) Unreinforced brick
foundation
(E) Unreinforced brick
facade
Ref 6:Cracking of Interior Wall
Ref 7: Foundation & Wall Section
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 207
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 208
1
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
1
1.
INTRODUCTION-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
2
1.1
REPORT
PREPARATION
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
2
1.2
ANALYSIS
RESOURCES
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
2
-‐
3
1.3
ARCHITECTURAL
EVALUATION-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
3
2.
HISTORY
AND
SIGNIFICANCE-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
4
2.1
BACKGROUND-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
4
2.2
RESOURCE
CLASSIFICATION
&
EVALUATION
(CEQA)-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
5
2.3
RESOURCE
CLASSIFICATION
&
EVALUATION
(CITY
OF
SLO)
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
5
2.3.1
DEFINITION
OF
CONTRIBUTING
RESOURCE
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
5
2.3.2
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
FOR
HISTORIC
LISTING
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
5
2.4
DETERMINATION
OF
HISTORICAL
LISTING
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
6
2.5
CHARACTER-‐DEFINING
ELEMENTS
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
6
2.6
CONSISTENCY
WITH
THE
CITY
OF
SLO
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE
&
PRESERVATION
PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
7
2.6.1
RETENTION
OF
CHARACTER-‐DEFINING
FEATURES
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
7
2.6.2
EXTERIOR
BUILDING
CHANGES
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
7
3.
EVALUATION
OF
CONSISTANCY
WITH
THE
SECRETARY
OF
INTERIOR
STANDARDS-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
8
3.1
DEPARTMENT
OF
INTERIOR
STANDARDS,
TREATMENTS
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
8
-‐
9
3.2
PROPOSED
METHODOLOGY
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
9
3.3
CONSISTENCY
WITH
THE
SECRETARY
OF
INTERIOR
STANDARDS
FOR
REHABILITATION
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
10
-‐
11
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
12
4.1
REMOVAL
&
STORAGE
OF
MATERIALS
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
12
4.1.1
BRICK
VENEER
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
12
4.1.2
BRICK
FOUNDATION
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
12
4.1.3
CLAY
TILE
ROOFING
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
12
-‐
13
4.1.4
WINDOWS
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
13
4.1.5
ENTRANCES
&
PORCHES
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
13
-‐
14
4.1.6
STRUCTURAL
SYSTEM
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
14
4.1.7
MECHANIC,
PLUMBING
&
ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
14
4.1.8
INTERIOR
SPACES,
FEATURES
&
FINISHES
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
14
4.1.9
BUILDING
SITE
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
14
4.1.10
CODE
REQUIRED
WORK
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
15
4.1.11
NEW
EXTERIOR
ADDITIONS
TO
HISTORIC
BUILDINGS
&
RELATED
NEW
CONSTRUCTION
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
15
5.
CONCLUSIONS-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
16
APPENDIX
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
17
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 209
2
1.
INTRODUCTION
Mr.
Ted
Gill,
the
owner
of
the
subject
property,
proposes
to
disassemble
the
existing
residence
at
859
Murray
Street
and
re-‐construct
and
rehabilitate
the
structure
in
essentially
the
same
configuration
and
character
as
the
existing
residence.
This
approach
is
proposed
due
to
the
extreme
deterioration
of
the
structure
and
building
envelope.
The
building
is
comprised
of
a
wood
framed,
one-‐story
single-‐family
residence
with
a
brick
veneer
and
a
raised
wood
floor
supported
by
an
unreinforced
brick
foundation.
Mr.
Gill
proposes
to
remove
and
store
the
brick
veneer
and
foundation
brick
as
well
as
the
clay
roofing
tiles
and
wood
windows
for
re-‐use
on
the
re-‐
constructed
building.
This
building
is
located
in
the
Anholm
neighborhood.
Although
this
neighborhood
is
not
a
historic
district
within
the
City,
a
number
of
structures
in
this
neighborhood
have
been
designated
as
either
Contributing,
or
Master
List
historic
properties.
This
residence
has
been
designated
a
Contributing
structure.
As
such,
modifications
to
this
structure
must
comply
with
the
City’s
Historic
Preservation
Ordinance
(2010)
and
Historic
Preservation
Program
Guidelines.
Because
this
project
will
require
a
discretionary
permit
from
the
City,
it
is
also
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
must
show
that
the
project
complies
with
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
Standards
for
the
treatment
of
Historic
Properties.
It
should
be
noted
that
anything,
which
impairs
the
resource’s
ability
to
convey
its
character
and
significance,
would
be
considered
a
significant
impact
under
CEQA
and
also
its
eligibility
to
remain
listed
as
a
local
historic
resource.
1.1
REPORT
PREPARATION
• At
the
request
of
the
owner,
Louisa
Anne
Smith,
Architect
was
retained
to
prepare
design
and
construction
documents
to
describe
the
proposed
work
and
to
prepare
the
historic
analysis.
• Charles
Crotser
Architect
AIA,
was
retained
to
assist
in
the
preparation
of
the
historical
and
architectural
analysis
document
for
this
proposal.
• Charles
R.
Ashley
Jr.,
Structural
Engineer,
was
retained
to
evaluate
the
condition
of
the
structure
and
to
provide
observations
and
recommendations.
Charles
holds
a
Structural
Engineering
license,
a
degree
in
Civil
Engineering
from
Cal
Poly,
San
Luis
Obispo,
and
construction
management
experience.
He
has
been
a
lead
structural
engineer
for
custom
residential
and
commercial
projects.
Charles
designs
and
oversees
structural
projects
with
his
firm
and
is
a
licensed
structural
engineer
in
California,
Washington,
Oregon,
Hawaii,
Nevada,
Arizona,
Idaho,
Texas,
and
Florida.
He
has
extensive
experience
in
both
residential
and
commercial
structural
design.
This
report
will
provide
recommendations
and
guidance
to
indicate
compliance
with
the
above-‐
mentioned
regulations,
ordinances,
guidelines
and
standards.
Work
undertaken
for
this
report
includes
background
research,
site
visits,
design
review
and
analysis.
The
project
property
is
depicted
in
“Exhibit
B”
and
identified
as
APN
001-‐022-‐008.
1.2
ANALYSIS
RESOURCES
Background
for
the
property
was
gathered
by
a
search
of
historic
literature,
maps,
newspapers,
documents,
photographs
and
the
Internet.
The
purpose
was
to
establish
the
structure’s
background,
historic
use
and
people
associated
with
the
property.
This
included
research
to
determine
if
historic
events
or
persons
important
to
the
history
of
San
Luis
Obispo
were
a
part
of
the
period
of
significance.
The
material
used
in
the
preparation
of
this
report
came
from
the
following
sources:
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 210
3
• The
SLO
City
Community
Development
Department
to
review
the
Historic
Resources
inventory
file
and
Sanborn
Maps
• San
Luis
Obispo
County
History
Center
Archives
to
review
historic
photographs
and
newspaper
articles
• Cal
Poly
Library
Special
Collections
to
review
1930’s
building
permits
• San
Luis
Obispo
County
Assessor’s
Office
for
parcel
maps
• Chain
of
Title
provided
by
First
American
Title
Insurance
Company
No
other
prior
studies
regarding
this
property
were
discovered
1.3
ARCHITECTURAL
EVALUATION
There
are
two
structures
located
on
this
parcel:
a
single-‐family
residence,
and
a
detached
2-‐vehicle
garage.
The
residence
is
a
simple
single-‐story
structure
of
a
vernacular
style,
exhibiting
some
influences
of
Spanish
Colonial
Revival,
or
Spanish
Eclectic.
This
would
have
been
a
traditional
building
form
for
this
location
and
era.
According
to
City
records,
the
structures
were
constructed
in
1931.
The
residence
has
a
medium
pitched
cross-‐gable
roof
with
very
shallow
eave
and
rake
overhangs.
The
roof
is
clad
with
red
clay
S-‐tiles.
The
wood
framed
exterior
walls
are
clad
with
a
full-‐dimension
brick
veneer,
which
has
been
painted.
The
painted
brick
can
be
seen
in
earlier
photos
of
the
house,
and
may
well
represent
the
original
finish.
A
small
recessed
uncovered
porch
characterizes
the
entry.
A
low,
brick
“garden
wall”
separates
the
front
yard
from
the
residence.
Generally,
the
windows
are
4over1,
double-‐hung
windows
with
shallow,
sloped
brick
sills.
The
primary
windows
facing
the
street
include
one
distinctive
large
fixed,
arched
window
with
simple
brick
detail
trim.
The
front
gable
end
features
a
simple
open
brick
pattern
attic
vent.
The
residence
is
constructed
with
a
shallow
raised
floor
system,
which
does
not
appear
to
comply
with
current
code
access
or
ventilation
requirements.
The
exterior
brick
veneer
and
wood
framed
walls
are
supported
on
an
unreinforced
brick
perimeter
foundation.
The
veneer
shows
significant
signs
of
cracking
and
deterioration.
Gaps
in
the
mortar
joints,
some
of
which
have
been
re-‐pointed
over
time
are
showing
signs
of
ongoing
and
increasing
separation
in
the
mortar
joinery.
This
deterioration
may
have
been
due
to
settlement
or
seismic
activity
over
time.
Although
this
analysis
does
not
evaluate
the
structural
integrity
of
the
existing
structures,
observations
and
recommendations
will
be
provided
by
structural
engineer,
Charles
Ashley,
in
a
separate
document.
The
building
setbacks,
front
and
side,
are
similar
to
those
of
other
structures
on
this
street
and
in
the
neighborhood.
The
garage
is
a
simple
box
structure
with
a
single,
shallow-‐pitched
shed
roof,
also
clad
with
clay
tiles.
It’s
character
is
rather
non-‐descript,
and
is
somewhat
typical
of
other
garages
in
neighborhoods
of
this
era.
It
too,
is
a
wood
framed
structure
with
brick
veneer.
This
building
contains
a
concrete
slab
floor,
which
exhibits
severe
settlement
and
cracking.
Although,
neither
structure
on
this
property
seems
to
have
received
modifications
or
additions,
they
exhibit
significant
deterioration
primarily
through
building
movement,
which
has
resulted
in
settlement
and
likely
moisture
problems.
Further
structural
analysis
shall
be
provided
n
a
separate
report.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 211
4
2.
HISTORY
AND
SIGNIFICANCE
2.1
BACKGROUND
859
Murray
Street
is
located
on
the
northerly
portion
of
The
Mount
Pleasanton
Square
Tract,
which
was
subdivided
in
1923
by
E.
H.
Meinecke,
Dorthea
Meinecke,
F.
W.
Grisinger,
Fred
A.
Schaeffer
and
R.
E.
Turner.
This
tract
is
a
portion
of
the
Phillips
Addition,
which
was
officially
annexed
to
the
City
in
1948.
W.
J.
Charters
was
the
original
owner
and
builder
of
the
structures
on
this
parcel.
Later
owners
included
W.
H.
Dillon,
J.
H.
Kirk
and
Theodore
Hiltel.
Theodore
(Ted)
and
Jennie
Hiltel
were
Ted
Gill’s
grandparents.
The
Gill
family
connection
to
this
property
began
when
the
Hiltels
purchased
the
property
in
1991.
Ted
Gill
was
named
after
his
grandfather.
Ted
Gill’s
wife
lived
in
the
house,
and
was
Ted
Gill’s
grandmother’s
companion
after
his
grandfather
passed
away.
Ted
Gill’s
mother,
Denise
Gill
and
her
brother
Ted
Hiltel
were
the
next
owners
until
his
mom
passed
away.
Then,
Ted
Gill
and
his
sister,
Liz
Hill,
purchased
his
Uncle
Ted
Hiltel’s
interest.
The
structures
on
this
parcel,
according
to
City
records,
were
constructed
in
1931
by
builder
and
then
owner,
W.J.
Charters
for
roughly
$4,500.
The
house
is
currently
identified
on
the
historic
listing
as
the
W.
J.
Charters
House.
2.2
RESOURCE
CLASSIFICATION
AND
EVALUATION
-
CEQA
In
February
1999,
changes
made
to
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
of
1970
(CEQA)
removed
thresholds
of
significance
from
the
main
document
and
relied
upon
criteria
set
forth
in
Public
Resources
Code
(CPRC),
Section
5024.1
Title
14
CCR
Section
4852.
Criteria
for
determining
the
significance
of
a
historic
or
archeological
resource
under
the
CPRC
has
been
applied
to
the
property
at
859
Murray
Street,
San
Luis
Obispo
as
indicated
below
and
concurrent
findings
are
as
follows:
a. Is
associated
with
events
that
have
made
a
significant
contribution
to
the
broad
patterns
of
California’s
history
and
cultural
heritage.
No
events
of
significance
were
discovered
during
the
research
for
the
project.
b. Is
associated
with
the
lives
of
persons
important
in
our
past.
There
were
no
findings
that
would
suggest
any
individuals
associated
with
this
property
would
rise
to
a
level
of
historical
importance
as
required
by
the
CPRC.
c. Embodies
the
distinctive
characteristics
of
a
type,
period,
region
or
method
of
construction,
or
represents
the
work
of
an
important
creative
individual,
or
possesses
high
artistic
value.
Generally,
the
structures
on
this
property
represent
a
style
and
scale
found
to
be
similar
to
others
in
the
original
development
of
this
early
subdivision.
The
neighborhood
has
remained
relatively
stable
and
contains
a
wide
variety
of
eclectic
architectural
styles.
The
residence,
although
somewhat
charming
does
not
represent
a
unique
example
of
architecture
for
this
neighborhood
or
this
era.
There
do
not
appear
to
be
any
significant
or
distinctive
features
including
construction
techniques
or
examples
of
craftsmanship
that
distinguish
this
residence
from
others
within
this
neighborhood.
The
existing
residence
does
not
exhibit
qualities
which
would
distinguish
it
as
a
unique
example
of
architecture
or
which
would
raise
it
to
a
level
of
architectural
significance.
d. Has
yielded,
or
may
be
likely
to
yield,
information
important
in
prehistory
or
history.
Not
likely
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 212
5
2.3
RESOURCE
CLASSIFICATION
AND
EVALUATION
–
CITY
OF
SLO
2.3.1
DEFINITION
OF
“CONTRIBUTING
RESOURCE”
(Per
The
2010
SLO
Historic
Preservation
Ordinance)
Contributing
List
Resource
or
Property:
a
designation
that
may
be
applied
to
buildings
or
other
resources
at
least
50
years
old
that
maintain
their
original
or
attained
historic
and
architectural
character,
and
contribute
either
by
themselves
or
in
conjunction
with
other
structures
to
the
unique
or
historic
character
of
a
neighborhood,
district,
or
to
the
City
as
a
whole.
They
need
not
be
located
in
a
historic
district.
2.3.2
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
FOR
HISTORIC
RESOURCE
LISTING
(14.01.070.)
When
determining
if
a
property
should
be
designated
as
a
listed
Historic
or
Cultural
Resource,
the
CHC
and
City
Council
shall
consider
this
ordinance
and
State
Historic
Preservation
Office
(“SHPO”)
standards.
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
designation,
the
resource
shall
exhibit
a
high
level
of
historic
integrity,
be
at
least
fifty
(50)
years
old
and
satisfy
at
least
one
of
the
following
criteria:
A.
Architectural
Criteria:
Embodies
the
distinctive
characteristics
of
a
type,
period,
region,
or
method
of
construction,
or
represents
the
work
of
a
master,
or
possesses
high
artistic
values:
(1)
Style:
Describes
the
form
of
a
building,
such
as
size,
structural
shape
and
details
within
that
form
(e.g.
arrangement
of
windows
and
doors,
ornamentation,
etc.).
(2)
Design:
Describes
the
architectural
concept
of
a
structure
and
the
quality
of
artistic
merit
and
craftsmanship
of
the
individual
parts.
Reflects
how
well
a
particular
style
or
combination
of
styles
are
expressed
through
compatibility
and
detailing
of
elements.
Also,
suggests
degree
to
which
the
designer
(e.g.,
carpenter-‐builder)
accurately
interpreted
and
conveyed
the
style(s).
(3)
Architect:
Describes
the
professional
(an
individual
or
firm)
directly
responsible
for
the
building
design
and
plans
of
the
structure.
B.
Historic
Criteria
(1)
History
–
Person:
Associated
with
the
lives
of
persons
important
to
local,
California,
or
national
history.
(2)
History
–
Event:
Associated
with
events
that
have
made
a
significant
contribution
to
the
broad
patterns
of
local
or
regional
history
or
the
cultural
heritage
of
California
or
the
United
States.
(3)
History-Context:
Associated
with
and
also
a
prime
illustration
of
predominant
patterns
of
political,
social,
economic,
cultural,
medical,
educational,
governmental,
military,
industrial,
or
religious
history.
C.
Integrity:
Authenticity
of
an
historical
resource’s
physical
identity
evidenced
by
the
survival
of
characteristics
that
existed
during
the
resource’s
period
of
significance.
Based
upon
the
above
criteria,
the
specific
criteria
that
would
likely
apply
to
this
project
would
be:
ITEM
C
–
INTEGRITY.
Refer
to
section
2.4
(below)
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 213
6
2.4
DETERMINATION
OF
HISTORICAL
LISTING
In
1999,
per
City
Council
Resolution
No,
8963,
this
property
was
added
to
the
Contributing
List
of
Historic
Resources,
along
with
27
other
properties
in
the
same
general
neighborhood.
Prior
to
the
Council’s
adoption,
the
Cultural
Heritage
Committee
had
recommended
addition
of
these
properties
“due
to
their
historical
and/or
architectural
significance
to
their
neighborhood
and
to
the
community”.
This
residence
was
classified
as
a
“Contributing”
historical
resource.
The
Historic
Resources
Inventory
Report
prepared
by
the
City
for
this
property,
indicates
that
this
residence
was
“interesting
for
its
brick
veneer”.
Per
the
“Documentation
of
Properties
of
Historic
Significance”
worksheet,
the
only
credible
reasons
for
applying
a
historical
listing
to
this
property
included:
• “The
structure
is
an
excellent
example
of
distinctive
architectural
style
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
it
has
not
been
altered
by
the
introduction
of
conflicting
architectural
elements”,
and,
.
.
.
• The
structure
has
incorporated
unique
details
or
architectural
features
seldom
seen
in
San
Luis
Obispo.
Otherwise,
this
evaluation
found
no
compelling
evidence
of
architectural
importance
of
this
building
through
a
connection
with
persons,
important
historical
events,
historical
context,
or
as
a
community
or
neighborhood
landmark.
We
believe
that
the
“contribution”
that
this
residence
provides
to
the
community
and
neighborhood
is
characterized
by
the
following
specific
character-‐
defining
elements.
2.5
CHARACTER-DEFINING
ELEMENTS
1. Simple,
single-story,
gable
roofed
form
(Fig.
1,
Exhibit
D)
2. Recessed
front
porch
with
low
garden
wall
as
an
entry
element
(Figures
1,3,5
&
6)
3. Full
dimension
common
brick
veneer
(painted),
all
elevations.
(Figures
1-22)
4. Traditional
4over1
double-hung,
wood
sash
windows
throughout
with
sloped
brick
sills
(Figures
3,
10,
10,
15,
16
&
18)
5. Large
distinctive,
fixed,
arched
window
in
front
elevation
6. Clay
tile
gable
end
vent
at
front
elevation
(Fig.
4)
7. Clay
S-tile
roof
(Fig.
1)
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 214
7
2.6
CONSISTANCY
WITH
THE
CITY
OF
SLO
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE
AND
PRESERVATION
PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
2.6.1
Retention
of
Character-defining
Features
The
City’s
Historic
Preservation
Program
Guidelines
states
that:
Alterations
of
historically
listed
buildings
shall
retain
character-defining
features.
New
features
on
primary
and
secondary
building
facades,
or
features
visible
from
a
public
area,
should
be
completed
in
a
manner
that
preserves
the
original
architectural
character,
form,
scale
and
appearance
of
the
building.
(City
of
SLO
2010:13)
The
proposed
rehabilitation
of
this
building
will
retain
all
of
the
building’s
character-
defining
features.
2.6.2
Exterior
Building
Changes
The
City’s
Historic
Preservation
Program
Guidelines
states
that:
Exterior
changes
to
historically
listed
buildings
or
resources
should
not
introduce
new
or
conflicting
architectural
elements
and
should
be
architecturally
compatible
with
the
original
and/or
prevailing
character
of
the
building,
its
setting
and
architectural
context.
Additions
to
historic
buildings
shall
comply
with
the
Secretary
of
Interior
Standards
to
complement
and
be
consistent
with
the
original
style
of
the
structure.
Building
materials
used
to
replicate
character-defining
features
shall
be
consistent
with
the
original
materials
in
terms
of
size,
shape,
quality
and
appearance.
However,
original
materials
are
not
required.
(City
of
SLO
2010:13)
The
proposed
addition
at
the
rear
of
the
residence
will
be
of
the
same
form,
scale,
and
of
the
same
materials
as
the
original
structure.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 215
8
3.
EVALUATION
OF
CONSISTANCY
WITH
THE
SECRETARY
OF
INTERIOR
STANDARDS
Although
the
subject
property
is
not
currently
located
within
a
designated
City
historic
district,
it
does
exist
within
a
well-‐established
residential
neighborhood
generally
known
as
the
Anholm
neighborhood,
Because
this
residence
was
placed
on
the
City’s
list
of
Contributing
Historic
Properties,
it
must
comply
with
the
City’s
2010
Historic
Preservation
Ordinance
and
Guidelines.
Also,
because
this
project
will
require
discretionary
review
the
work
must
also
comply
with
requirements
of
CEQA
and
with
the
Secretary
of
Interior
Standards
treatment
of
Historic
Properties.
As
noted
in
the
introduction
to
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior’s
Standards
for
the
Treatment
of
Historic
Properties
with
Guidelines
for
Preserving,
Rehabilitating,
Restoring
and
Reconstruction
Historic
Buildings,
.
.
.
“The
Secretary
of
the
Interior’s
Standards
for
the
Treatment
of
Historic
Properties
are
regulatory
only
for
projects
receiving
Historic
Preservation
Fund
grant
assistance
and
other
federally-assisted
projects.
Otherwise,
these
guidelines
are
intended
to
provide
general
guidance
for
work
on
any
historic
building.”.
.
.
However,
evaluation
will
be
performed
for
this
residential
project
per
City
requirements.
3.1
DEPARTMENT
OF
INTERIOR
STANDARDS
TREATMENTS
According
to
the
Department
of
Interior
(DOI)
Standards
the
four
treatment
alternatives
are
as
follows:
Preservation
is
defined
as
the
act
or
process
of
applying
measures
necessary
to
sustain
the
existing
form,
integrity,
and
materials
of
an
historic
property.
Work,
including
preliminary
measures
to
protect
and
stabilize
the
property,
generally
focuses
upon
the
ongoing
maintenance
and
repair
of
historic
materials
and
features
rather
than
extensive
replacement
and
new
construction.
The
limited
and
sensitive
upgrading
of
mechanical,
electrical,
and
plumbing
systems
and
other
code-required
work
to
make
properties
functional
is
appropriate
within
a
preservation
project.
However,
new
exterior
additions
are
not
within
the
scope
of
this
treatment.
The
Standards
for
Preservation
require
retention
of
the
greatest
amount
of
historic
fabric
along
with
the
building’s
historic
form.
Rehabilitation
is
defined
as
the
act
or
process
of
making
possible
a
compatible
use
for
a
property
through
repair,
alterations,
and
additions
while
preserving
those
portions
or
features,
which
convey
its
historical,
cultural,
or
architectural
values.
The
Rehabilitation
Standards
acknowledge
the
need
to
alter
or
add
to
a
historic
building
to
meet
continuing
or
new
uses
while
retaining
the
building’s
historic
character.
Restoration
is
defined
as
the
act
or
process
of
accurately
depicting
the
form,
features,
and
character
of
a
property
as
it
appeared
at
a
particular
period
of
time
by
means
of
the
removal
of
features
from
other
periods
in
its
history
and
reconstruction
of
missing
features
from
the
restoration
period.
The
limited
and
sensitive
upgrading
of
mechanical,
electrical,
and
plumbing
systems
and
other
code-required
work
to
make
properties
functional
is
appropriate
within
a
restoration
project.
The
Restoration
Standards
allow
for
the
depiction
of
a
building
at
a
particular
time
in
its
history
by
preserving
materials,
features,
finishes,
and
spaces
from
its
period
of
significance
and
removing
those
from
other
periods.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 216
9
Reconstruction
is
defined
as
the
act
or
process
of
depicting,
by
means
of
new
construction,
the
form,
features,
and
detailing
of
a
non-surviving
site,
landscape,
building,
structure,
or
object
for
the
purpose
of
replicating
its
appearance
at
a
specific
period
of
time
and
in
its
historic
location.
The
Reconstruction
Standards
establish
a
limited
framework
for
recreating
a
vanished
or
non-‐
surviving
building
with
new
materials,
primarily
for
interpretive
purposes.
3.2
PROPOSED
METHODOLOGY
The
stated
intent
for
this
project,
due
to
its
severe
deterioration,
is
to
de-‐construct
the
structure,
carefully
remove
original
materials
(clay
tile
roof,
wood
windows,
veneer
brick
and
foundation
brick)
and
re-‐construct
the
residence
in
essentially
the
identical
configuration
that
we
see
today.
The
re-‐construction
and
rehabilitation
would
insure
that
the
structure
is
structurally
sound,
meets
current
code
and
other
functional
requirements
and
remains
a
“contributing
element”
of
this
neighborhood.
This
would
seem
to
be
a
“Reconstruction”,
however,
because
the
DOI
definition
describes
“Reconstruction”
as
re-‐creating
the
structure
in
“all
new
materials”,
this
proposal
might
better
be
described
as
a
hybrid
Reconstruction/Rehabilitation
because
the
primary
original
materials
will
be
re-‐used
to
replicate
the
original
character
and
patina
of
the
structure.
However,
City
staff
has
recommended
approaching
this
proposal
as
a
“Rehabilitation”
indicating
that
“.
.
.
discussion
of
the
treatments
other
than
Rehabilitation
aren’t
going
to
be
relevant”.
As
a
result,
and
for
the
purpose
of
this
analysis,
we
will
evaluate
this
project
as
a
‘Rehabilitation”.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 217
10
3.3
CONSISTENCY
WITH
THE
SECRETARY
OF
THE
INTERIOR’S
STANDARDS
FOR
REHABILITATION
The
proposed
project
as
described
in
the
drawings
by
Louisa
Anne
Smith,
Architect,
are
consistent
with
8
of
the
10
standards
for
rehabilitation,
but
do
not
strictly
comply
with
Standards
4
&
8,
which
don’t
necessarily
apply
to
this
project.
A
discussion
of
each
of
the
Standards
and
assessment
of
the
proposed
project
for
consistency
follows:
1. A
property
will
be
used
as
it
was
historically
or
be
given
a
new
use
that
requires
minimal
change
to
its
distinctive
materials,
features,
spaces
and
spatial
relationships.
The
proposal
is
to
reconstruct
the
residence
within
essentially
the
same
footprint
and
to
closely
replicate
the
existing
building
form
and
character.
This
structure
shall
remain
a
single-‐family
residence.
There
will
be
minimal
change
to
the
rehabilitated
structure’s
distinctive
materials,
features,
spaces
and
spatial
relationships.
2. The
historic
character
of
a
property
will
be
retained
and
preserved.
The
removal
of
distinctive
materials
or
alteration
of
features,
spaces
and
spatial
relationships
that
characterize
a
property
will
be
avoided.
The
rehabilitated
structure
shall
retain
and
preserve
all
of
its
relevant
character
defining
elements.
The
distinctive
materials,
specifically
the
clay
tile
roofing,
the
original
brick
veneer
siding
and
wood
windows,
shall
be
carefully
removed,
stored
and
reinstalled
so
as
to
retain
the
original
form,
character
and
materiality
of
the
residence.
3. Each
property
will
be
recognized
as
a
physical
record
of
its
time,
place
and
use.
Changes
that
create
a
false
sense
of
historical
development,
such
as
adding
conjectural
features
or
elements
from
other
historic
properties,
will
not
be
undertaken.
The
primary
change
to
the
residence
will
be
a
relatively
small
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
building.
It
will
maintain
the
same
scale,
proportion,
style
and
materiality
as
the
original
building.
There
will
be
no
new
or
conjectural
features
incorporated
in
the
final
construction.
(Refer
to
items
#1
&
#2
above.)
4. Changes
to
a
property
that
have
acquired
historic
significance
in
their
own
right
will
be
retained
and
preserved.
The
property
and
buildings
are
essentially
in
the
same
configuration
and
character
as
they
were
when
originally
constructed
in
the
early
1930’s.
No
additions,
other
than
minor
yard
improvements
in
the
rear
yard
have
been
made
since
the
original
improvements.
5. Distinctive
materials,
features,
finishes,
and
construction
techniques
or
examples
of
craftsmanship
that
characterize
a
property
will
be
preserved.
The
determination
of
classifying
the
residence
as
a
“Contributing”
historic
resource
was
apparently
for
its
scale,
materiality,
features
and
finishes.
This
building
does
not
represent
unique
construction
technique
or
craftsmanship.
Those
distinctive
features
and
character
defining
elements
as
described
in
this
report
shall
be
preserved
in
the
rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 218
11
6. Deteriorated
historic
features
will
be
repaired
rather
than
replaced.
Where
the
severity
of
deterioration
requires
replacement
of
a
distinctive
feature,
the
new
feature
will
match
the
old
in
design,
color,
texture
and,
where
possible,
materials.
Replacement
of
missing
features
will
be
substantiated
by
documentary
and
physical
evidence.
The
primary
materials
(roofing
and
brick
veneer)
shall
be
carefully
removed
and
reinstalled
during
the
rehabilitation.
The
primary
structural
elements
(wood
frame
and
unreinforced
brick
foundation
must
be
replaced
because
of
extreme
deterioration
and
lack
of
structural
adequacy
(Refer
to
structural
engineer’s
report).
The
only
other
features
of
importance
are
the
wood
windows.
These
items
shall
be
carefully
removed
and
restored.
If
it
is
discovered
that
any
of
the
windows
are
beyond
repair,
new
windows
will
be
constructed
or
replaced
with
an
appropriate
product
to
match
the
existing
windows
in
character.
7. Chemical
or
physical
treatments,
if
appropriate,
will
be
undertaken
using
the
gentlest
means
possible.
Treatments
that
cause
damage
to
historic
materials
will
not
be
used.
We
don’t
anticipate
the
need
for
chemical
treatment
of
any
of
the
historic
elements.
However,
the
clay
tile
roofing
and
brick
veneer
will
likely
need
gentle
physical
cleaning
to
assure
proper
re-‐
installation.
It
is
the
intention
to
retain
as
much
of
the
original
patina
of
these
materials
as
possible.
(Refer
to
Section
4
–
Recommendations)
8. Archeological
resources
will
be
protected
and
preserved
in
place.
If
such
resources
must
be
disturbed,
mitigation
measures
will
be
undertaken.
No
evidence
or
expectation
of
discovering
archeological
resources
is
likely.
However,
if
any
such
resources
are
discovered,
the
owner
will
work
with
the
City
to
develop
an
appropriate
mitigation
plan.
9. New
additions,
exterior
alterations,
or
related
new
construction
will
not
destroy
historic
materials,
features,
and
spatial
relationships
that
characterize
the
property.
The
new
work
will
be
differentiated
from
the
old
and
will
be
compatible
with
the
historic
materials,
features,
size,
scale
and
proportion,
and
massing
to
protect
the
integrity
of
the
property
and
its
environment.
Refer
to
the
architectural
drawings
prepared
by
Louisa
Ann
Smith,
Architect
10. New
additions
and
adjacent
or
related
new
construction
will
be
undertaken
in
such
a
manner
that,
if
removed
in
the
future,
the
essential
form
and
integrity
of
the
historic
property
and
its
environment
would
be
unimpaired.
The
relatively
minor
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
main
residence
is
intended
to
blend
with
the
existing
structure
in
form,
scale,
and
material.
Should
this
addition
be
removed,
the
building
would
easily
revert
to
its
current
configuration
with
virtually
no
impact
on
the
existing
character
defining
elements.
Because
the
garage
and
accessory
dwelling
unit
are
detached
from
the
main
residence,
if
removed,
they
would
not
cause
loss
of
integrity
to
the
main
residence.
(Refer
to
the
architectural
drawings
prepared
by
Louisa
Ann
Smith,
Architect)
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 219
12
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
REMOVAL
AND
STORAGE
OF
ORIGINAL
MATERIALS
4.1.1
Brick
Veneer
• The
brick
veneer,
will
be
removed
as
carefully
as
practical
and
cleaned
of
extraneous
mortar
and
residue.
Removal
of
mortar
may
be
accomplished
by
mechanical
chipping,
if
necessary
to
provide
a
uniform,
clean
mortar
bonding
surface.
• Soiled
masonry
surfaces
shall
be
cleaned
with
the
gentlest
method
possible,
such
as
using
low-‐pressure
water
and
detergent
and
natural
bristle
or
other
soft-‐bristle
brushes.
• If
necessary,
biodegradable
or
environmentally
safe
cleaning
products
will
be
used.
• Because,
the
bricks
have
been
painted
and
retain
much
of
the
surface
paint,
the
intention
is
to
preserve
the
painted
surfaces
so
as
to
retain
the
original
patina,
when
re-‐
installed
as
veneer.
Brick
edges
must
be
adequately
clean
to
accept
new
mortar
bond.
• The
bricks
will
be
stored
on-‐site,
on
palettes
in
a
location
that
will
not
impede
the
eventual
reconstruction.
(Refer
to
architectural
plans
for
storage
location).
• When
reinstalled,
historic
mortar
joints
shall
be
duplicated
in
width
and
joint
profile.
• Because
many
of
the
existing
veneer
bricks
have
deteriorated,
“in-‐kind”
replacement
during
rehabilitation
may
be
necessary.
If
using
the
same
kind
of
material
is
not
feasible,
then
a
compatible
substitute
material
may
be
considered.
4.1.2
Brick
Foundation
• The
brick
foundation
will
be
carefully
disassembled.
Bricks
will
be
carefully
cleaned
of
extraneous
mortar,
grout,
dirt
or
grime
so
as
to
potentially
be
used
as
supplemental
brick
veneer,
or
for
landscape
features
as
determined
by
the
owner.
(Refer
to
above
cleaning
and
storage
recommendations).
NOTE:
The
veneer
brick
was
likely
produced
at
the
San
Luis
Brick
Works
on
South
Broad
Street,
which
was
founded
in
1907
near
two
railroads,
the
Southern
Pacific
and
Pacific
Coast
Railroad.
The
clay
at
this
location
was
suitable
for
making
good
common
brick.
This
company
was
the
only
brick
manufacturer
in
San
Luis
Obispo
County
during
the
time
it
was
in
operation.
Up
until
1915,
when
the
plant
first
shut
down,
it
had
produced
over
10,000,000
bricks.
A.
F.
Fitzgerald
was
the
president
of
this
first
operation.
In
1921,
the
Faulstich
Brothers,
John
and
Charles,
reopened
the
brick
plant
under
the
San
Luis
Brick
Works.
The
Faulstich
Brothers
wanted
to
produce
"superior"
common
brick
and
hollow
tile.
Brick
and
hollow
tile
continued
to
be
produced
from
this
plant
with
occasional
periods
of
closures;
the
longest
shutdown
was
from
1950
to
1955.
In
1956,
the
firm
reorganized
under
the
name
San
Luis
Brick,
Inc.,
but
it
was
still
owned
by
the
Faulstich
brothers.
According
to
Bert
Weddle,
president
of
the
San
Luis
Brick,
Inc.,
the
company
closed
the
plant
in
1979
due
problems
meeting
the
air
pollution
standards.
4.1.3
Clay
Tile
Roofing
• The
intention
of
this
rehabilitation
is
to
re-‐use
as
many
of
the
existing
roof
tiles
as
possible.
If
it
is
necessary
to
supplement
the
existing
tiles
with
new
tiles,
the
new
tiles
shall
replicate
as
close
as
possible,
the
existing
form,
material
and
color
as
the
existing,
and
will
be
randomly
intermixed
with
the
existing
tiles,
preferably
located
more
on
the
rear
portion
of
the
structure
so
as
to
blend
the
roof
surface
character
as
seamlessly
as
possible.
It
is
very
likely
that
the
clay
roof
tiles
removed
from
the
detached
garage
will
be
sufficient
in
quantity
to
clad
the
entire
residence
with
the
original
clay
tile.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 220
13
• The
clay
tiles
will
be
carefully
removed
from
the
exiting
residence
and
the
detached
garage
(a
non-‐contributing
historic
structure)
and
lightly
cleaned
so
as
to
preserve
as
much
of
the
existing
patina
as
possible.
• Cleaning
clay
tile
surfaces
with
the
gentlest
method
possible,
such
as
using
low-‐pressure
water
and
natural
bristle
or
other
soft-‐bristle
brushes,
if
necessary.
• Tiles
shall
be
carefully
stored
on-‐site,
on
palettes
in
a
location
that
will
not
impede
the
eventual
reconstruction.
(Refer
to
the
architectural
plans
for
storage
location).
4.1.4
Windows
• Identify,
retain,
and
preserve
windows
and
their
functional
and
decorative
features
that
are
important
to
the
overall
character
of
the
building.
The
window
material
and
how
the
window
operates
(e.g.,
double
hung,
casement,
awning,
or
hopper)
are
significant,
as
are
its
components
(including
sash,
muntins,
glazing,
pane
configuration,
sills,
mullions,
casings,
or
brick
molds)
and
related
features.
• Evaluate
the
overall
condition
of
the
windows
to
determine
the
level
of
repair
or
maintenance
required
to
allow
for
the
reinstallation
of
the
windows
in
the
rehabilitation.
• The
wood
windows
shall
be
carefully
removed
and
stored
in
a
secure
weather
protected
space,
likely
off-‐site
for
repair
and
rehabilitation
prior
to
reinstallation.
• Repair
of
existing
window
frames
and
sash
by
patching,
splicing,
consolidating,
or
otherwise
reinforcing
them
shall
follow
recognized
preservation
methods.
Repair
may
include
the
limited
replacement
in
kind
or
with
a
compatible
substitute
material
of
those
extensively
deteriorated,
broken,
or
missing
components
of
features
when
there
are
surviving
prototypes,
such
as
sash,
sills,
hardware,
or
shutters.
• Replacement
all
of
the
components
in
a
glazing
system,
if
they
have
failed
because
of
faulty
design
or
materials
which
have
deteriorated,
with
new
material
that
will
improve
the
window
performance
without
noticeably
changing
the
historic
appearance
is
acceptable.
• Replacing
in
kind
an
entire
window
that
is
too
deteriorated
to
repair,
or
new
windows
that
will
be
necessary
for
the
residence
addition
shall
replicate
as
close
as
possible
the
character
of
the
existing
windows.
• Replacing
windows
that
are
too
deteriorated
to
repair
using
the
same
sash
and
pane
configuration,
but
with
new
windows
that
operate
differently,
if
necessary,
to
accommodate
a
new
use.
Any
change
must
have
minimal
visual
impact.
Examples
could
include
replacing
hopper
or
awning
windows
with
casement
windows.
• Modifying
a
historic
single-‐glazed
sash
to
accommodate
insulated
glass
when
it
will
not
jeopardize
the
soundness
of
the
sash
or
significantly
alter
its
appearance.
Is
acceptable.
• Using
low-‐e
glass
with
the
least
visible
tint
in
new
or
replacement
windows
is
acceptable.
• Adding
new
window
openings
on
rear
or
other
secondary,
less
visible
elevations,
if
required
by
a
new
use
is
acceptable.
The
new
openings
and
the
windows
in
them
should
be
compatible
with
the
overall
design
of
the
building
but,
in
most
cases,
not
duplicate
the
historic
fenestration.
4.1.5
Entrances
and
Porches
• Retain
and
preserve
the
primary
entrance
and
porch
and
their
functional
and
decorative
features
that
are
important
in
defining
the
overall
historic
character
of
the
building.
The
materials,
doors
and
fenestration
and
general
configuration
shall
be
maintained
in
the
rehabilitation.
Minor
relocation
of
entry
door
and
fenestration
within
the
recessed
porch
to
accommodate
improved
function
will
not
compromise
the
porch
as
a
character-‐defining
element.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 221
14
• Replacing
in
kind
an
entire
entrance
or
porch
that
is
too
deteriorated
to
repair
(if
the
overall
form
and
detailing
are
still
evident)
using
the
physical
evidence
as
a
model
to
reproduce
the
feature
or
when
the
replacement
can
be
based
on
historic
documentation.
If
using
the
same
kind
of
material
is
not
feasible,
then
a
compatible
substitute
material
may
be
considered.
4.1.6
Structural
System
• The
structural
system
is
severely
compromised.
Replacing
in-‐kind
or
with
a
compatible
substitute
material,
large
portions
or
entire
features
of
the
structural
system
that
are
either
extensively
damaged
or
deteriorated
or
that
are
missing
when
there
are
surviving
prototypes
material
must
be
structurally
sufficient,
physically
compatible
with
the
rest
of
the
system.
• The
wood
frame
structure
shall
be
re-‐constructed
to
comply
with
current
building
codes
while
retaining
the
essential
qualities
of
the
original
frame.
4.1.7
Mechanical,
Plumbing
and
Electrical
Systems
• Because
interior
elements
such
as
utilities
and
their
related
equipment
and
services
were
not
considered
when
this
structure
was
given
a
historical
classification,
these
systems
shall
be
upgraded
to
current
standards
of
health
and
safety,
but
will
not
be
addressed
in
this
report.
4.1.8
Interior
Spaces,
Features
and
Finishes
• Because
interior
elements
such
as
spaces,
features
and
finishes
were
not
considered
when
this
structure
was
given
a
historical
classification,
these
elements
are
not
addressed
in
this
report.
• There
will
be
some
relatively
minor
adjustments
some
of
the
interior
walls
and
resultant
interior
spaces
to
accommodate
better
functionality,
however,
none
of
these
adjustments
will
affect
the
exterior
character-‐defining
features
of
this
resource.
4.1.9
Building
Site
• Features
of
the
building
site
that
are
important
in
defining
its
overall
historic
character
shall
be
maintained
in
the
proposed
rehabilitation.
Site
features
include
setbacks,
building
placement,
walls,
fences,
or
steps;
circulation
systems,
such
as
walks;
vegetation,
such
as
trees,
shrubs,
grass,
and
subsurface
archeological
resources
(if
any).
• New
exterior
additions
to
historic
buildings
or
adjacent
new
construction
shall
be
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
historic
character
of
the
site
and
preserves
the
historic
relationship
between
the
building
or
buildings
and
the
landscape.
• Proper
drainage
shall
be
provided
to
ensure
that
water
does
not
erode
foundation
walls,
drain
toward
the
building,
or
damage
or
erode
the
landscape.
• NOTE:
Because
the
building
must
be
in
compliance
with
flood
zone
requirements
for
this
parcel,
it’s
likely
that
all
existing
flatwork
and
new
finish
grades
will
be
altered.
However,
the
general
character
will
be
rehabilitated,
essentially
as
it
appears
today.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 222
15
4.1.10
Code
Required
Work
• Because
the
existing
structure
was
constructed
under
the
building
codes
in
effect
in
1931,
any
modifications
must
comply
with
current
codes
and
standards.
• The
proposed
project
must
comply
with
life-‐safety
codes
(including
requirements
for
impact-‐resistant
glazing,
energy
conserving
features
and
seismic
retrofit)
in
such
a
manner
that
the
historic
building’s
character-‐defining
exterior
features,
and
features
of
the
site
and
setting
are
preserved
or
impacted
as
little
as
possible.
4.1.11
New
Exterior
Additions
to
Historic
Buildings
and
Related
New
Construction
• The
new
addition
on
a
secondary
or
non
character-‐defining
elevation
will
be
limited
in
size
and
scale
in
relationship
to
the
historic
building.
(Refer
to
the
architect’s
drawings).
• The
proposed
new
addition
will
result
in
the
least
possible
loss
of
historic
materials
and
character-‐defining
features
will
not
be
obscured,
damaged,
or
destroyed.
• The
new
proposed
addition
will
result
in
the
least
possible
loss
of
historic
materials
so
that
character-‐defining
features
are
not
obscured,
damaged,
or
destroyed.
• Ensuring
that
the
addition
is
subordinate
and
secondary
to
the
historic
building
and
is
compatible
in
massing,
scale,
materials,
relationship
of
solids
to
voids,
and
color.
• Use
the
same
forms,
materials,
and
color
range
of
the
historic
building
in
a
manner
that
does
not
duplicate
it,
but
distinguishes
the
addition
from
the
original
building.
• Base
the
alignment,
rhythm,
and
size
of
the
window
and
door
openings
of
the
new
addition
on
those
of
the
historic
building.
• Consider
the
design
for
a
new
addition
in
terms
of
its
relationship
to
the
historic
building
as
well
as
the
historic
district,
neighborhood,
and
setting.
• Locate
new
construction
(the
garage
and
ADU)
far
enough
away
from
the
historic
building,
when
possible,
where
it
will
be
minimally
visible
and
will
not
negatively
affect
the
building’s
character,
the
site,
or
setting.
(Refer
to
architect’s
drawings)
• Ensure that new construction is secondary to the historic building and does not
detract from its significance.
(Refer
to
architect’s
drawings)
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 223
16
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The
owner
of
the
residence
at
859
Murray
Street
wishes
to
rehabilitate
this
family
residence
in
order
to
re-‐occupy
the
home.
Although
the
residence
retains
its
original
appearance,
it
did
not
rise
to
the
level
of
a
significant
cultural
resource
and
the
investigation
found
that
the
residence
did
not
meet
criteria
A,
B,
C
or
D
of
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior’s
criteria
for
significance.
It
also
fails
to
meet
the
level
of
significance
required
by
the
California
Public
Resources
Code.
However,
because
it
has
been
listed
as
a
local
resource,
modifications
must
comply
with
the
recommendations
as
outlined
in
the
Secretary
of
Interior
Standards
for
the
Treatment
of
Historic
Properties.
The
owner
intends
to
maintain
the
overall
character
and
materiality
of
this
residence.
However
due
to
the
condition
of
the
structure,
the
owner
proposes
that
the
building
be
“disassembled”
and
rehabilitated
to
resemble
in
scale,
form
and
materiality,
the
original
building.
The
owner
would
remove
the
original
clay
roofing
and
re-‐use
as
much
of
the
undamaged
material
as
possible.
Likewise,
the
brick
veneer
would
be
removed,
cleaned
and
re-‐installed
as
veneer
on
the
rehabilitated
structure.
Existing
wood
windows
would
be
removed
and
carefully
restored
as
necessary
and
re-‐installed
in
the
new
construction.
Other
character-‐defining
details
such
as
the
garden
wall
and
unique
gable-‐end
vent
would
be
re-‐constructed.
The
basic
floor
plan
and
building
footprint
would
be
replicated
as
closely
as
possible
while
accommodating
functional
improvements
and
complying
with
current
health
and
safety
measures.
In
addition,
this
property
is
located
in
a
flood
zone
which
would
mean
that
when
or
if
the
residence
was
reconstructed
or
renovated,
it
would
need
to
be
lifted
approximately
18”
to
comply
with
flood
zone
criteria.
This
residence,
when
rehabilitated,
should
continue
to
provide
the
charm
as
appreciated
in
the
original
building
and
would
fully
maintain
its
“contribution”
to
the
neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 224
17
APPENDIX
PAGE
Exhibit
A
-‐
Vicinity
Map
18
Exhibit
B
-‐
Assessor’s
Parcel
Map
19
Exhibit
C
-‐
Exterior
Photographs
(Existing
Main
Residence)
20
-‐
23
Exhibit
D
-‐
Street
View
of
Subject
Property
24
Exhibit
E
-‐
Neighborhood
Context
Images
25
-‐
27
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 225
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 226
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 227
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 228
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 229
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 230
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 231
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 232
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 233
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 234
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 235
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 236
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 237
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 238
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 239
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 240
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 241
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 242
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 243
ATTACHMENT 5Packet Page 244
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
147
SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
Enormously popular in Southern California from the late 1910s through the late 1930s, the Spanish
Colonial Revival style emerged from a conscious effort by architects to emulate older Spanish
architectural traditions, and break with Eastern colonial influences. At the peak of its popularity, design
features of other regions of the Mediterranean were often creatively incorporated, including those of
Italy, France, and North Africa. The result was a pan-Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations on
Spanish Revival styles.
Character-defining features include:
Asymmetrical facade
Red clay tile hip or side-gable roof, or flat roof with a tile-clad parapet
Stucco exterior cladding, forming uninterrupted wall planes
Wood-frame casement or double-hung windows, typically with divided lights
Arched colonnades, window or door openings
Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster
Balconies, patios or towers
Decorative terra cotta or tile work
M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street. Source: Historic
Resources Group. Division of Highways District 5 Office, 50 Higuera Street,
1931. Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
U.S. Post Office, 893 Marsh Street, 1925. Source: Historic
Resources Group.Mission College Prep Catholic High School, Palm
& Broad Streets. Source: Historic Resources Group.
ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 245
17
c.Similarity to and/or compatibility of structures over 50 years of age which,
collectively, combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive
character.
(2) Whether the proposed district contains structures which meet criteria for inclusion on
the City’s List of Historic Resources.
14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources
A. Intent. Listed historic resources are an irreplaceable community resource that merit
special protection to preserve them for future generations, and shall not be demolished unless
the City Council makes all of the findings specified in Section 14.01.100 D, provided
however, that these thresholds shall not apply to repairs to listed historic resources that do not
require a building permit, or where the CHC or the Director has determined such work is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
B. Demolition review. The CHC shall review and make recommendation to the City Council
concerning demolition applications for structures listed in the Inventory of Historic resources.
C. Demolition thresholds. Demolition permits for structures which are included on the
Inventory of Historic resources shall be required for:
(1) Alterations to or removal of greater than 25% of the original building framework, roof
structure, and exterior walls; and
(2) Relocation of such resources to a site outside the city limits.
D. Required findings for demolition of a historic resource. The decision-making body shall
approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources
only if it determines that the proposed demolition is consistent with the General Plan and:
(1) The historic resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repair or stabilization is not
structurally feasible. Deterioration resulting from the property owner’s neglect or failure to
maintain the property should not be a justification for demolition. The applicant may be required
to provide structural reports, to the approval of the Community Development Director or City
Council, to document that repairs or stabilization are not feasible; or
(2) Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described under findings 1-
3 of Section J.
E. Demolition timing. , City regulations provide for a 90-day waiting period before demolition
of a listed historic resource to allow consideration of alternatives to preserve the building through
relocation and/or property trades. The Chief Building Official shall not issue a permit for
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 246
18
demolishing a historic resource, except where the Chief Building Official determines a listed
historic resource may pose an imminent demonstrable threat to human life and safety, until:
(1) public notice requirements in the City’s Demolition and Building Relocation Code have been
met; and
(2)) a construction permit is issued for a replacement building; and
(3) all permit fees for the new development are paid. Where no new development is proposed,
the property owner shall provide to the Director’s satisfaction, financial guarantees to ensure
demolition plans and conditions of approval are implemented.
F. Historic and architectural documentation. Before the issuance of a demolition permit for
structures listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the resource and its site shall be
documented as specified in City standards, to the satisfaction of the CHC and the Director. The
documentation shall be retained in a secure, but publicly accessible, location.
G. Historic acknowledgement. An acknowledgment of demolished resources shall be provided
through historic signage and/or the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts on site, at
the owner’s expense, to the Director’s approval.
H. Code requirements. Demolitions shall follow standards and procedures in the Demolition
and Building Relocation Code and California Building Code as locally amended.
I. Expiration of demolition approval. Demolition approval of a listed historic resource shall
expire two years after its date of approval, unless a building permit has been issued and
construction has begun. A one year extension may be granted by the Director. Additional time
extensions shall require reapplication to, and approval by the CHC.
J. Economic Hardship. An economic hardship provision is established to ensure that denial of
a demolition permit does not impose undue hardship on the owner of a historical resource. If the
applicant presents evidence clearly demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CHC or the City
Council that the action will cause an extreme hardship, the CHC may recommend approval, and
the Council may approve or conditionally approve a demolition or other application to modify a
listed historic resource even though it does not meet one or more standards set forth herein. The
applicant shall be responsible for providing substantiation of the claim to the Director, who shall
review the information with the Director of Finance and make a joint recommendation to the
CHC on the hardship request. The CHC shall consider and make a recommendation to the
Council regarding the financial impacts of denial of the demolition permit. Private financial
information shall be maintained in confidence by the City. The CHC is authorized to request
that the applicant furnish information, documentation and/or expert testimony, the cost of which
shall be paid by the applicant, to be considered by the Committee in its related findings. All
additional required information shall be provided by a qualified individual or firm approved by
the Director. In determining whether extreme hardship exists, the Committee and Council shall
consider evidence that demonstrates:
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 247
19
(1)Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject property so as to leave
substantially no economic value, after considering other means of offsetting the costs of retaining
the historic resource, including, but not limited to, tax abatements, financial assistance, building
code modifications, changes in allowed uses, grants,; or
(2)Sale or rental of the property is impractical, when compared to the cost of holding such
property for uses permitted in the zoning district; or
(3)Utilization of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or impractical;
14.01.110 Relocation of Historic Resources.
Relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource and is
discouraged. Relocation applications shall be evaluated as follows:
A. Review. The CHC and ARCH shall review applications to relocate structures listed on the
Inventory of Historic Resources.
B. Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of Historic
Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the Director to be potentially historic,
is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when relocation is
consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, any applicable area or specific plans,
and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and:
(1) The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and
(2) Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the
historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource is
located or at its proposed location, and
(3) The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership
long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the
Director’s approval, and
(4) The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource’s historic significance; and
[moved to 2 above]; OR
(5) The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site
and no other measures for correcting the condition are feasible, OR
(6) The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section J for
demolition of a historic resource.
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 248
12
3.3 Historic Resources outside Historic Districts
3.3.1 Historic Resources outside Historic Districts. Listed Historic Resources located outside
of historic districts shall be subject to the same protection and regulations applicable to historic
resources within historic districts.
3.4 Changes to Historic Resources.
Projects involving an alteration or relocation of a listed historic resource require CHC review, as
described below:
3.4.1 Alterations to Historic Resources.
(a) Application. An application to alter a listed historic resource shall be made on forms
provided by the Department, including applicable fees and any supplemental information as
required to explain the request.
(b) Minor alterations. For minor alterations to listed historic resources, the Director may
approve upon making the finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and these Guidelines. If this finding
cannot be made, the Director will refer the matter to the CHC for review and comment.
(c) Accessory structures. New accessory structures should complement the primary
structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials.
(d) Additions. Additions to listed historic structures should maintain the structure’s original
architectural integrity and closely match the building’s original architecture, or match additions
that have achieved historic significance in their own right, in terms of scale, form, massing,
rhythm, fenestration, materials, color and architectural details.
(e) Historic preservation report required. If CHC review of a project is required, a historic
preservation report shall be prepared at the applicant’s cost unless this requirement is waived by
the Director due to the minor nature of the project or because information is otherwise available
to enable informed review of the proposed project. The report will be used to determine if the
proposal can be found consistent with the findings in subsection (f).
Report content. A historic preservation report shall require CHC approval. The report shall be
prepared by a qualified professional unless waived by the Director and shall be based on these
guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and
shall include the following:
(1) The historic context, period of significance and character-defining features.
(2) An architectural history of the resource which includes:
ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 249
13
•Photographs and drawings which identify the original building, structure, object,
and site configuration,
•Character defining features of the resource as originally constructed,
•Alterations, including those alterations made over time that have achieved status as
character defining features, even though not a part of the original resource, and
•Alterations not consistent with maintaining the historic integrity of the resource.
(3) A program for repair, rehabilitation and preservation of the resource, including a
statement of how the proposed program meets the identified treatment option from
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
(f) Consistency required. Alterations to listed historic resources shall be approved only upon
finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, any required historic preservation report, General Plan policies,
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and these Guidelines.
3.4.2 Percent of historic resource to be preserved.
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain at
least 75% of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse
original materials as feasible. Proposed alterations of
greater than 25% of the original building framework, roof,
and exterior walls will be subject to the review process for
demolitions. Alterations do not include ordinary repair or
maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Resources.
3.4.3 Retention of character-defining features.
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain
character defining features. New features on primary and
secondary building facades, or features visible from a public
area, should be completed in a manner that preserves the
original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance
of the building.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes. Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or resources
should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally
compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting
and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure.
Building materials used to replicate character-defining features shall be consistent with the
original materials in terms of size, shape, quality and appearance. However, original materials
are not required.
Rehabilitation of the historic
Righetti House, 2007
ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 250
14
Figure 6 - Additions in Historic Districts
3.4.5 Interior building changes. Interior changes to publicly-accessible listed historic buildings
whose architectural or historic significance is wholly or partially based on interior architectural
characters or features shall preserve and restore significant interior architectural features.
3.4.6 Acquired historic significance. Changes to listed historic resources that the Director or
the CHC determines to have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained
and preserved.
3.5 Reconstruction of Historic Resources
3.5.1 Historic building codes. Reconstruction of listed historic structures should preserve the
original historic character of the historic resource to the maximum extent possible; use of
California Historic Building code is encouraged to accomplish such preservation.
3.5.2 Consistency with Standards. Reconstruction shall follow the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, and shall be based on conclusive evidence such as architectural plans, photos, as-built
drawings and other reliable and accurate information.
3.5.3 Minor variations. The Director or the ARC, on recommendation by the CHC, may
approve minor variations from the original design to meet code requirements; provided the
overall architectural character is maintained and character defining features are accurately
recreated.
ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 251
REHABILITATIONREHABILITATION
STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION & GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions
while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical,
cultural, or architectural values.
75 ATTACHMENT 9Packet Page 252
REHABILITATION
76
Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of dis
tinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that character
ize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, fea
tures, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and
its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired. ATTACHMENT 9Packet Page 253